Require users to provide specific information for companies to research user complaints

I second John's request. A simple second box, that says something to the effect of, "If you would like to enter a issue/ticket number please enter here." would be huge for us. I spent half an hour today hunting down a customer.

1. Searched by their Satisfaction username in our system.
2. Found an account because the email happened to match the user name.
3. Saw an order that fit the description.
4. Searched for a ticket in Timpani/LivePerson using that account and order info.
5. Found nothing.
6. Saw the user's full name on the order.
7. Searched in Timpani and found the ticket.
8. The customer had a second account with separate orders that were the problem.
9. I was able to help the customer.

If a customer is that mad, I need to do everything I can to get them a satisfactory answer the first time. Not just from a transparency perspective , but to help the customer. Yes, it shows we cared if we asked for more info. and the customer never provided it, but it is still better to help the customer if at all possible.

If a company rep. could select from a set number of fields to offer their customers, then our chance of helping someone would increase greatly. For us:

* Ticket Number
* Order Number
* Project ID

The goal isn't just transparency, but also good customer service and this is the information we need to fix peoples problems efficiently.

Offering companies some customization should also lead to greater by in by companies. Getting customers satisfactory answers faster should please customers too. As long as those boxes are always option, it shouldn't hold people back. They could have a disclaimer such as, "Company X can help you faster if you provide the following optional information."

Thanks,
Michael

Scott,

The problem with requiring users to do anything is that it is stifling. In the sense that it prevents people from posting at all, and also constrains the direction that conversations can take. When every problem requires an order number, it stops people from voicing their problems pre-purchase, just as one example.

Being a User Experience Engineer, I am well aware of the potential problems caused by lengthy forms which have several required fields. I can understand the position that requiring an order number or trouble ticket may be inhibitive to posting the request in the first place, but not actively encouraging it also isn't the answer either. Although it is probably too late in the game for you folks, I think a system of using actual names rather than usernames is a way for for Customer Service teams to quickly resolve an issue. Most organizations have a way of looking up an issue with a first and last name. Trying to tie a person's username here with an account on our end is a long shot.

Satisfaction is all about bringing personality to what is otherwise a series of contact forms and order number fields.

This is a noble goal. However, this does not mean that in order to make the dissatisfied customer feel better about this forum or any other better, you have to inhibit or resist assisting the organization in looking into the problem. This forum exists for the user, I understand that. I just believe that if you want more participation from companies, it would suit you to help them too. We want to help. Few companies are successful when they don't put great stock into customer service. Give us a chance to quickly look into or resolve the issue. Customer service is expensive. It isn't easy to divert resources from the normal support channels into a third party, but our care for our creator community means we will. The more times a customer service person has to go back and forth to investigate means more delays and a higher cost for the organization.

Eric,

I am so glad you are rejoining us because it shows a willingness to try it our way, a different way. But I bet you are having second thoughts.

This isn't true. Before being developer at Lulu, I spent a year and a half as a customer service operator. A good percentage of our front and back end developers have spent time in customer service. It provides a very meaningful insight to both the support end of business as well as the user experience. I have no qualms addressing dissatisfied customers. I see it as a challenge to find a user who has had a negative experience and turn them into an advocate for us. We are a great company, provide a great service, and take care of our users.

I would also wager that the particular kind of service you offer people — publish a book yourself — is one that probably has a million potential customer service pitfalls, not the least of which is a subset of customers who may expect instant fame and fortune from their book, and who may direct any disappointments right toward you

This is also not the case. We take great strides to emphasize that the creator is the publisher, not Lulu. We also make great effort not to set expectations of a publishing deal or sales of thousands of copies. The majority of our customer service complaints are not unusual--order not received/taking too long, defect in printing, encountering a bug in the application.

You're right: We need to find a better way to encourage people to suppress their initial urge to rant.

eBay has a feedback system in which both parties can mutually withdraw feedback. I'm not certain that model fits this scenario, but more than once I have seen remorse from writing something while emotional. The ability to go back and edit or otherwise append the initial statement may go towards this end.

The hope with our service is that the Lulu section can be populated with a lot of success stories and not just soapbox rants.

I see the value in providing an alternate channel of communication. Having 100% of our support over electronic communication can be frustrating to those with whom technology is not a comforting thing. Just as with telephone customer service, there are support cases that for whatever reason fall through the cracks and do not get addressed in the time that they should. Our Customer Advocacy team is on board with your application, but making their job easier will go a long way to ensure that this site is viewed as an opportunity rather than more noise.

--John

Thor,

We agree! By the way, we don't "exist for the user" -- we're aiming to bring customers and companies closer together, and make the communication more human.

This is reassuring to hear. I do find it impressive that someone with the letters CEO next to their name addressing your users' (in this case, another company's) concerns with your product.

I look forward to new releases in which new features are implemented that achieve the end you seek.

Thanks to you and everyone else in your organization for the prompt and helpful replies.

--John

John Morris, we all try to contibute as a community to resolve the problem, even if at times it takes a lot of work on the part of a complaining person, company representative, and the whole GS network, but that is what all of us are here for.

I come here to resolve my problems, and some of them get fixed right a way, other are on the back burner, but that is life.

I beleive if we inforce a user to provide detail data they may not voice their complaint! Remember why are they here in the first place! If a user would have been helped in a proper matter by a company they would not need to look for another way of solving a problem.

So, Scot, my suggestion set up the input fields but do not make them mandatory for submiting a post.

Thank you all GS employees and companies for coming to this wonderful public forum

Igor Berger